Structured Decision-Making Workshop · •Informed site design •Input considered by...

Structured Decision-Making

Workshop

May 31, 2013

7479862

Opening Remarks

John Forsdick

Context Research

2

Agenda

3

How LGPAC & CRF input has influenced:

• Objectives Hierarchy

• 9 Design Concepts

• 3 Build Scenarios

4

Example – Impact of Community Input

Date Consultation

Activity

Impact of your input

Jun 2012 LGPAC Mtg #1 • Shaped development of 9 concepts

Sep 2012 Community

Workshop #1

• Informed site design

• Input considered by municipalities

Nov 2012 Community

Workshop #2

• Revised objectives framework

• Directly shaped specific objectives

Feb 2013 LGPAC Mtg #4 • Direction on 9 concepts

• Informed development of 3 scenarios

Apr 2013 Community

Workshop #3

• Design direction for 3 scenarios (eg.

estuary discharge)

Apr 2013 Public Meeting • Community interests/questions/ concern

provided direction in assessment of 3

build scenarios

5

Control Odour

Minimize

noise

Consider

truck traffic

impacts

Future proofing

including

population growth

and disasters

Examples of things we heard from

LGPAC and CRF that influenced the

evaluation framework

Design for

climate change

Objectives Hierarchy

6

Recover water,

energy, nutrient

resources

Water

conservation

Create a place

people want to live

Examples of things we heard from

LGPAC and CRF that influenced the

evaluation framework

Establish

connections to the

surroundings

Protect and enhance the

environment

Objectives Hierarchy

7

A tourist

attraction for

the North Shore

Reduce

nuisances

(noise, dust)

Public

education

Connect the

community to

the waterfront

Multi-use to leverage

infrastructure for

amenities

Examples of things we heard from LGPAC and

CRF that influenced the development of the

9 Design Concepts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9 Design Concepts

Control

OdourFocus on

costs / value

8

Flexibility (Concept 3)

• Adaptability

• Accommodate

future population

growth / technology

• Smaller footprint

Examples of things LGPAC

members told us they thought were

the most appealing in the 9 design

concepts, that then influenced

the 3 Build Scenarios

3 Build Scenarios Ecology (Concepts 1, 7,

8)

• Regenerative design

• Passive onsite habitat

• Urban garden

• Tiered greenery

1 2 3

Additional uses / Cost-effectiveness (Concepts 6, 9)

• Office space

• Multi-purpose community space

• Artist studios and incubator industries

• Complementary businesses

• Sustainable from a cost perspective

Integrated Resource

Recovery (Concept 4)

• On-site IRR, but not

trucking off site

• Feed the energy

requirements of the

industrial community

Overview of Structured Decision Making (SDM)

Process used by Metro Vancouver for evaluating

alternatives

Graham LongCompass Resource Management

Structured-Decision Making Workshop

May 31, 2013

10

Objectives for this workshop

• To introduce and discuss the methodology being used by Metro Vancouver to

create and evaluate potential alternatives

• To clarify how LGPAC / CRF input has been used and will be used in future

• To engage participants in weighting exercises that help explore and

communicate preferences to Metro Vancouver

• To provide an update on the current status of the project and to seek further

input on key trade-offs for the three Build Scenarios

11

Overview of Structured Decision Making

(SDM)

“… a formalization of common sense for decision problems which are too complex

for informal use of common sense."

Ralph Keeney

12

Overview of Structured Decision Making

(SDM)

• Based on decision analysis principles that date back to the 1940s

• One of many variants on a theme

• Multi-attribute trade-off analysis

• Multiple account evaluation

• Kepner Tregoe is another variant

13

Overview of Structured Decision Making

(SDM)

All these methods rely in some way on:

• Defining a context

– what‟s the decision all about?

– what are the “must haves” or “must not haves”?

• Defining objectives (the things that matter)

• Developing alternatives

• Evaluating the impact of alternatives on objectives

– Some techniques use weighting to assist in this

14

Overview of Structured Decision Making

(SDM)Example: buying a truck

Objectives and measurement scales

Alternatives

15

Overview of Structured Decision Making

(SDM)

What’s different about SDM?

• Less focus on using pre-defined weights to automatically select a „winner‟

• More focus on using structure to inform discussion

• Uses multiple weighting techniques to help understand and communicate what people

prefer and why

• Ultimately, uses structure as a prop to debate

Review of objective hierarchy and measurement

scales

Graham LongCompass Resource Management

17

Lions Gate SWWTP

Must haves include:

• Ability to treat wastewater from the North Shore to secondary standard as defined by the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations under the federal Fisheries Act, and as committed to in Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan, approved by the Minister in 2011.

• Must be in service by Dec. 31, 2020

• Meet the four goals of:

1. Secondary treatment

2. Sustainability

3. Integrated Resource Recovery

4. Community Integration

18

Lions Gate SWWTP

Objectives:

See the handout:

19

Lions Gate SWWTP

Example of how to fill in the form

20

Lions Gate SWWTP

Example of how to fill in the form

21

Lions Gate SWWTP

Example of how to fill in the form

22

Lions Gate SWWTP

Example of how to fill in the form

23

Lions Gate SWWTP

Example of how to fill in the form

24

Lions Gate SWWTP

Exercise 1: individual swing weighting

Graham LongCompass Resource Management

26

BREAK

11:00 – 11:15 a.m.

Summary presentation of the nine concepts

Laurie FordSenior Engineer, Metro Vancouver

29

Summary Table for 9 Design Concepts

Summary Table for 9 Design Concepts

Concept 1 - Intertidal Wetland 2 - Living Breathing

Organism

3 - Network 4 - Ant Colony 5 - Flea Market 6 - Perpetual Motion Machine7 - Urban Garden 8 - Urban Ecology 9A - Dragons Den 9B - Dragons Den

Liquid Treatment Level Meets secondary Meets secondary Exceeds secondary Exceeds secondary Meets secondary Meets secondary Meets secondary Meets secondary Meets secondary Meets secondary

Effluent Use (other than

outfall)

Mackay wetland, pocket

estuaries

- Industrial use, satellite

facilities

Industrial use, satellite

facilities

- - Greenhouses - On-site development use On-site development use

Solids Treatment On-site digestion and

trucking biosolids cake off-

site

On-site digestion, drying,

and trucking dried pellets

off-site

Truck raw sludge in tanker

trucks to second site for

digestion with food waste,

and drying to pellets

Truck pulped food waste to

site for digestion with

sludge, drying to pellets

Combusted in thermal

reduction process

On-site digestion and

trucking biosolids cake off-

site

On-site digestion and

trucking biosolids cake off-

site

On-site digestion and

trucking biosolids cake off-

site

On site digestion for some,

addition of lime dust for

remainder

Addition of lime dust

Comanagement with North

Shore Food Waste

- - Yes, at second site Yes, at plant site - - - - - -

Use of Solids Land application Land application, energy for

cement kilns

Energy for cement kilns Energy for cement kilns Ash to disposal Land application Land application Land application Land application Land application

Energy Recovery Biogas upgraded to feed to

natural gas pipeline

Biogas sold for use in

district energy system

Biogas used for biosolids

dryer and to power/heat off-

site facility

Biogas used for biosolids

dryer

Heat recovered from burning

solids to heat plant

Biogas used to generate heat

and electricity for plant use

Biogas upgraded to feed to

natural gas pipeline

Biogas used to generate heat

and electricity for plant use

None None

Potential to use effluent heat

for adjacent district energy

systems

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Plant Footprint Low profile High visibility Small (on site) Medium Small Big Small footprint Small footprint to maximize

space available for

vegetation

Large footprint, partially

buried tanks with structures

built on top

Small footprint to maximize

space to build

Potential for Education Story of water treatment on

site

Story of MV work More opportunities for

awareness

More opportunities for

awareness

Repeat visitors - messaging

opportunities

Visible indicators of

performance

Potential for research Interpretive Information for tenants Information for tenants

Other Features Minimize chemical use and

energy intensity

Potential tourist attraction Leasable high bay work

space

Community space, such as

multipurpose, artist, outdoor

space

Flexibility for future process

modifications

Greenhouses on site, seed

starts

Terraced urban forest Towers/space for private

sector development

Towers/roof space for

private sector development

Viewpoints created for visual

connection to waterfront

Community amenity space -

ice sheet, ball courts

Reuse of water and nutrients

on site

Onsite and off-site habitat

creation

Exercise 2: Individual direct weighing

Graham LongCompass Resource Management

LUNCH

12:30 – 1:30 p.m.

Discussion of weighting results and comparison with

previous findings

Graham LongCompass Resource Management

33

How were each of the concepts rated?

Engineering Team Evaluation

This initial evaluation was undertaken by Webex on February 4, 2013 and was a precursor to an evaluation meeting with the Lions Gate SWWTP Core Team on February 7 and discussions with the Integrated Design Team (IDT) and other stakeholders at Workshop No. 4 (Feb 12 to 14). The following people participated in the Webex on February 4, 2013:

1. Mohammad Abu-Orf

2. Joyce Chang

3. Pat Coleman

4. Kim Fries

5. Dave Lycon

6. Dan Pitzler

7. Barry Rabinowitz

8. John Spencer

9. Beverley Stinson

10. Rick Bitcon

34

How were each of the concepts rated?

People involved in the initial Community Integration ratings are shown below.

1. Matthew Woodruff

2. Robin Mills

3. Jeff Cutler

4. Michel Labrie

5. Sarah Primeau

6. Graham Long

35

Alternatives 1 and 7:

Least expensive and functionally strong

36

Alternatives 1 and 7:

Least expensive and functionally strong

Few differences in their relative performance:

Alt 1 performs better for most of Goal 2

Alt 7 performs better for a variety of other measures

Questions:

Are they too alike?

Should they compete or merge?

Should one be removed?

37

Alternatives 3 and 4: Bigger financial and operational risks – but worth it for

the sustainability pay-off?

38

Alternatives 3 and 4: Bigger financial and operational risks – but worth it for

the sustainability pay-off?

Comparison

Alt 4 has a slight edge on Goal 1

Alt 3 performs better on Goal 2 and other social measures

Alt 4 is less expensive and has less cost risk

Questions:

Are they too alike?

Should they compete or merge?

Should one be removed?

39

Alternatives 2 and 6:

Inexpensive and simple–but mediocre performance?

40

Alternatives 2 and 6:

Inexpensive and simple–but mediocre performance?

Little to differentiate their

performance…

But are either the best

that can be done…?

See next slide

41

Alternatives 2 and 6:

Inexpensive and simple–but mediocre performance?

Alternatives 2 beats 7

only if 4 measures are

highly weighted:

Alternative 6 beats 7

only if 5 measures are

highly weighted:

42

Alternative 5: Strong community aspects…but is it ‘sustainable’ enough?

43

Alternative 5: Strong community aspects…but is it ‘sustainable’ enough?

Alternative 5 is perhaps

outperformed by

Alternative 1?

Could elements of

Alternatives 5 be used to

strengthen Alternative 1?

44

Alternative 8:

A strong all-rounder?

45

Alternative 8:

A strong all-rounder?

Alternative 8 performs

quite well across a wide

range of measures.

Not clearly beaten by

any other

May be worth a further

look?

46

Alternative 9A and 9B:

Out-performed, one-trick ponies?

47

Alternative 9A and 9B:

Out-performed, one-trick ponies?

Both 9A and 9B may

also be out-performed by

Alternative 1?

Can the economic

development benefits of

these alternatives be

used to strengthen

another alternative(s)?

Summary presentations of the three Build Scenarios

Laurie FordSenior Engineer, Metro Vancouver

BREAK

3:00 – 3:15 p.m.

Discussion: Key trade-offs requiring input

Graham LongCompass Resource Management

51

From 9 concepts to 3 build scenarios

Concept considerations Outcome

Alternatives 1, 7 and 8 were leading candidates

using both techniques; however, all three of these

Concepts were similar in their focus of themes that

were designed to appeal to „naturalness‟ in some

way.

Most effective

components

reconfigured to form

Build Scenario C

‘Natural’

Alternatives 3 and 4 were strongly favoured by

some people based on strong performance in Goals

3 and 4. Although Alternative 9 performed poorly as

configured in this first round, there was still interest

in exploring further the notion underlying the

„Dragon‟s Den‟ Concept.

Most effective

components

reconfigured to form

Build Scenario A

‘Resource’

There were other individual thematic and

engineering ideas within the remaining alternatives

that people considered important to explore further

in a second round of evaluation (e.g. thermal

oxidation, community-focused site usage etc).

Most effective

components

reconfigured to form

Build Scenario B

‘Community’

Wrap up and close

John ForsdickContext Research